Outlook for the DOE Cleanup Program. November 2010

Transcription

1 Outlook for the DOE Cleanup Program November 2010

2 Billions EM Budget Priorities Activities to maintain a safe, secure, and compliant posture in the EM complex Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition Special nuclear material consolidation, processing, and disposition High priority groundwater remediation Transuranic and mixed/lowlevel waste disposition Soil and groundwater remediation Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 EM Program to Go Costs (FY 2010+) Recovery Act Tank Waste SNM/SNF TRU Waste LLW & MLLW Facility D&D, Soil & Groundwater 2

3 Billions EM Budgetary Outlook Administration announced a 5% decrease in discretionary non-defense funding $10 Baseline is higher than best-case budget projections Strategic thinking about investments is critical to moving program forward $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 NDAA Baseline Recovery Act $1 $0 FIscal Year 3

4 Dominant EM Program Components are Focus of Strategic Opportunities Development Two Dominant Program Areas Two Dominant Sites Largest LCC reduction opportunity Tank Waste & SNF/SNM $101.9, 53% 57% Hanford / 29% Savannah River Facility D&D $34.8, 18% Soil & Groundwater $28.7, 15% TRU Waste $14.8, 8% LLW & MLLW $10.6, 6% Idaho $19.3, 10% Hanford $92.2, 48% 58% Tank Waste & SNF/SNM Savannah River $36.0, 19% 68% Tank Waste & SNF/SNM H.Q. $10.8, 6% Carl. $4.0, 2% Paducah $9.2, 5% Portsmouth $7.0, 4% O.R. $4.2, 2% Rocky $2.6, 1% Remaining $5.6, 3% Largest footprint reduction opportunity Opportunity to complete cleanup at a larger site 4

5 Strategic Planning Used to Optimize Program and Balance Budget Priorities Strategic Planning Initiative Early Benefits Portfolio of Additional Opportunities Evaluated multiple conceptual business cases to achieve LCC savings and footprint reduction Alternative approaches to dispositioning tank waste, excess nuclear materials and spent fuel Selected shovel-ready projects for Recovery Act funds Resulted in LCC reductions and scope acceleration Focus on: Footprint Reduction Enhanced Tank Waste Strategy Build on success of ARRA in reducing LCC Apply lessons learned Challenge sites to continue achievement of efficiencies 5

6 Why is ARRA Success Significant? First two production reactors at Savannah River (P&R) decommissioned First large site legacy TRU completion (Savannah River) Three small site completions BNL, SLAC, SPRU Completion of Idaho legacy D&D Substantial high risk work scope started from other programs Idaho RH TRU from NE High risk facilities at Oak Ridge transferred in 6

7 Footprint Reduction Opportunities Support High Priority Performance Goal Reduce the EM Legacy Footprint by 40% by the end of 2011, leading to approximately 90% reduction by 2015 Enable sites to maintain Recovery Act momentum and leverage economies of scale Free land and resources for other uses Current EM Footprint Post ARRA 53% Reduction 2015 ~90% Reduction % Reduction 7

8 Portfolio of Additional Opportunities Leverages Strategic Planning Successes Under Recovery Act (as of September 30, 2010) Reduced EM footprint 202 square miles, additional 171 square mile reduction planned, for a total of 40% reduction Demolished 1.0 million square feet of buildings of the 6.0 million square feet planned Disposed 0.8 million cubic meters of debris and soil of the 1.4 million cubic meters planned Disposed almost 42,000 cubic meters of low-level and mixed low-level waste of 86,000 cubic meters planned Dispositioned over 1,800 cubic meters of transuranic waste of 8,100 cubic meters planned Disposed over 1.4 million tons of mill tailings at Moab of 2 million tons planned 8

9 Majority of Recovery Act funding will be expended by end of FY 2011 Effects: No compliance safety net in FY 2012 Increased overhead burden on projects inability to spread them over Base and Recovery Act projects Inability to address Departmental excess facilities/materials Workforce Reduction of approximately 6,000 prime contractor jobs and 4,000 subcontractor jobs Approximately 1,400 at SRS and 1,300 at Hanford Process to begin in FY

10 FY 2012 Integration of Base and Recovery Act Recovery Act/Base Re-integration Entire program areas have been funded with Recovery Act funds At SRS, the entire Solid Waste, D&D and Soil and Groundwater programs have been entirely funded by the Recovery Act Need to establish viable programs that have been fully funded with Recovery Act funds May raise potential compliance concerns Significant pressure applied to traditional highest risk prioritization approach 10

11 FY 2012 Strategy Capitalize on Recovery Act success - Invest in programmatic activities that offer the greatest return on investment by reducing in life-cycle cost and period of execution [Tank waste and Footprint Reduction] - Invest savings realized from $6 billion in Recovery Act funding to achieve 2015 footprint reduction goals Capitalize on pension driven cost avoidance - Invest in tank waste technologies Adopt contract management and project management innovations Need to proactively manage work force to avoid mission impacts Recovery Act layoffs may be compounded Administration freeze and 5% reduction for all discretionary non defense funding levels 11

12 Idaho Is the Next Opportunity to Complete EM Cleanup at a Larger Site Scope Accelerated for Early Completion All environmental restoration by 2015 Treatment of waste in 4 remaining sodium bearing waste tanks and closure by 2015 All legacy TRU by 2015 SDA cap at RWMC by 2017 Buried waste retrieval Plan for AMWTP RCRA closure Could be retained as DOE asset for waste certification and packaging for shipment to WIPP Investment: $361M Net Savings: $828M ROI: 229% NPV: $417M 12

13 Driving for Early Completion of EM Cleanup at Idaho Summary of Remaining Scope AMWTP Future mission? Calcine currently in stable storage, CD-1 by December 2012 CPP-666 basin EM fuel already removed to dry storage Foreign/Domestic Research Reactor receipts Long term stewardship of groundwater, remediated sites, and operating facilities 13

14 Strategic Investments Can Substantially Accelerate Cleanup Additional estimated $4 B investment above baseline could accelerate completion of cleanup Would further reduce EM life cycle cost by estimated $4.7 B Leads to tank waste, SNF, SNM only complex Nevada Idaho West Valley Accelerated Oak Ridge Moab Portsmouth Savannah River Hanford Hanford Base Oak Ridge West Valley Nevada Savannah River Portsmouth Moab Idaho 14

15 Footprint Reduction Opportunities Offer Significant LCC Reductions Across the Complex Hanford Site Investment $528 Savings $266 ROI 50% Idaho National Laboratory Investment $361 Savings $828 ROI 229% Portsmouth Investment $1,380 Savings $2,100 ROI 154% West Valley Investment $33 Savings $19 ROI 58% Nevada Test Site Investment $161 Savings $108 ROI 67% Moab Investment $136 Savings $163 ROI 120% Oak Ridge Investment $91 Savings $74 ROI 82% Savannah River Site Investment $1,286 Savings $1,155 ROI 90% 15

16 Comparison of Footprint Reduction Opportunities Opportunity Investment ($M) Net Savings ($M) Hanford River Corridor Area by 2015 (87% footprint reduction) $40 $77 193% Hanford Central Plateau Outer Area by 2020 (98% footprint reduction) $488 $189 39% Idaho cleanup accelerated from 2035 to 2017 $361 $ % Moab completion accelerated from 2025 to 2019 $136 $ % Nevada cleanup accelerated from 2026 to 2018 $161 $108 67% Portsmouth GDP D&D accelerated from 2044 to 2025 $1,380 $2, % Oak Ridge existing IFDP facility completion by 2015 $91 $74 82% Savannah River 90% footprint reduction by 2015 $1,286 $1,155 90% West Valley cleanup accelerated from 2019 to 2016 $33 $19 58% EM Total $3,975 $4, % ROI (%) 16

17 Enhanced Tank Waste Strategies Yield Large LCC Savings Strategy Expected Benefit 1. At-Tank/Near-Tank Treatment In-tank solid-liquid separation and Cs137 removal using rotary microfiltration and small column ion exchange for pretreatment 2. Next-generation Melters and Waste Loading Enhancements Design & commissioning of nextgeneration melter $1.65B Investment $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 River Protection $14.7B Savings Eliminates need for second LAW Completes single shell tank retrieval 6 years early Completes tank waste treatment 7 years early 3. Advanced Separation Processes/ Alternative Treatment Disposal Processes Fluidized bed steam reforming for low activity waste treatment Advanced solvents for radionuclide solvent extraction $722M Investment $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Savannah River $3.2B Savings Closes high risk tanks 5 years early Completes tank waste treatment 6 years early 17

18 About $14.7B in Savings at River Protection 18

19 More than $3B in Savings at Savannah River 19

20 Closing Next Step EM will explore opportunities for significant savings by deconstructing infrastructure Recovery Act is demonstrating how additional dollars can significantly accelerate the EM program There are opportunities in tank waste and continued accelerated closure of sites to reduce overall LCC Recovery Act has demonstrated that investment can significantly reduce life-cycle cost 20